Democrats have made it quite clear that the battle for the Supreme Court
is going to be a political battle. Republicans must respond by making it
just that. This means nominating individuals who Democrats cannot reject
without looking petty, bigoted and foolish.

One way, often discussed, is to nominate Miguel Estrada (or another conservative
Hispanic) for the first vacancy open on the court. Compel Democrats to attack
him, and because they cannot win a Senate vote, compel Democrats to filibuster
Estrada.

While Republican efforts to generate Hispanic support for Estrada on the
Court of Appeals have not been successful, the argument that "Democrats
will not even allow the Senate to vote on the Estrada nomination" will
produce much more discomfort.

Estrada could announce that if the Democrats do not even allow members of
the Senate to vote "yes" or "no" on his nomination by
a certain date, then he will withdraw his nomination. He should directly
asked Hispanics through political commercials in Spanish-speaking media to
grant him the same right that Democrats have granted Anglo nominees like
Robert Bork.

Another tactic is to do what I suggested in an April
2002 ESR article. Nominate
Vice President Cheney to be Chief Justice. He is a good, solid, articulate
and respected conservative politician, and his calm in the face of camera
- as shown in the Vice Presidential Debate - was magnificent.

Dick Cheney would be ideal for this, but so would several other conservatives.
Dan Quayle, for example, was a senator and was also President of the Senate.
Once mocked mercilessly, Vice President Quayle is now regarded as a bright,
decent and honorable man.

Governors Engler of Michigan or Thompson of Wisconsin would also be choices
that would cause Senate Democrats great heartburn (how do Democrat senators
from those states vote against enormously popular former governors?)

There is one political figure who could defang the Democrats arguments about
putting some right-wing extremist (blah, blah, blah) on the Supreme Court:
former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating. Why? Several reasons.

The Murrah Building Bombing was the worst terrorist attack in American history
at the time it happened. There was a strong suspicion at the time of the
attack that the culprits were Islamic terrorists. Governor Keating had to
balance the serious concerns of public safety, the integrity of the criminal
justice system, and the need to maintain calm and sensible in the face of
mass casualties.

Keating

He performed his job admirably, and the entire nation - liberals and conservatives
alike - praised how he handled this very difficult situation. As the Supreme
Court weighs the rights of individuals and the needs of national security,
the whole nation should perceive the need for a justice who can be fair and
can also be perceived as fair.

Moreover, Governor Keating served in the Department of Justice as the second
highest administrative official in that agency and he participated as Governor
of Oklahoma in a nationally recognized simulated smallpox attack on America.

His credentials in understanding the nature of terrorism, his experience
as a principal attorney for the federal government, and his calmness in the
face of crisis make him perfectly suited to address those issues related
to counter-terrorism which the Supreme Court will face.

Liberals oppose conservative nominees because of the alleged religious intolerance
of these conservatives. Frank Keating is a social conservative with impeccable
credentials, but he also resigned recently as the head of the American Bishops
groups to investigate sexual abuse within the Catholic Church.

Few, if any, social conservatives can make a more compelling case that they
will rule according to what seems just and proper, and not be guided by their
own religious affiliation or expressed religious faith.

This immunity from liberal attacks is reinforced by the overwhelmingly positive
reception that Governor Keating received from the American people and even
the liberal media for his handling of the Murrah Bombing and then the disastrous
tornadoes that destroyed a significant part of the Oklahoma City metropolitan
area.

His "likeability" and "trustworthiness" in public opinion
polls would probably be as high as any individual that President Bush could
name to the Supreme Court. Attacks on Keating would be perceived as mean-spirited
and partisan - which, of course, is exactly what they would be.

Critically, the greatest revulsion at Democratic demagoguery would be greatest
in the Great Plains and the Southwest - Oklahoma is considered a part of
both regions - and Democrats in the Senate are particularly vulnerable in
these states.

South Dakota, North Dakota, Arkansas and Louisiana are conservative states
with two Democrat senators. Nebraska, New Mexico and Iowa each have a Democrat
senator. It would be very difficult to convince the people of these seven
states that the popular two-term governor of a state in their region was
some foaming-at-the-mouth extremist.

Moreover, Iowa and New Mexico went for Gore in 2000 by paper-thin margins.
Depicting Frank Keating as someone "out of touch with America" will
not play well at all in either of those states. Compelling Democrats to either
paint themselves into a corner or to confirm him as an "exceptional
case."

President Bush doubtless knows this, but only politics will get conservatives
on the federal bench. He needs to play very hardball politics, and nominating
Frank Keating for the next vacant seat on the Supreme Court would be an excellent
way to throw Senate Democrats a curve ball.

Bruce Walker is a senior
writer with Enter Stage Right. He is also a frequent contributor to The
Pragmatist and The Common Conservative.

Other related stories: (open in a new window)

Cheney
for Chief Justice by Bruce Walker
(April 8, 2002)
It would be a hard one to pull off but Bruce Walker thinks Dick Cheney should
be nominated for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court